Table 1. Reported prediction results from different studies.

Studya	Number of TFs	Number of unique TFBSs	Dataset size (Total TF-TFBS links)	True TF-TFBS links	False TF-TFBS links	Testing method	Highest accuracy
Qian Z. et al. (reported in (33))	480	2,341	10,206	3,356	6,850	Leave one out	76.6%
Qian Z. et al. (reported in (34))	143	571	10,430	3,430	7,000	Leave one out	87.9%
Cai, Y. et al. (reported in (35))	599	2,402	35,410	3,541	31,869	Leave one out	91.1%
DRAF models (on the datasets from this study)	232	44,710	1,214,389	110,399	1,103,990	30% holdout	99.16%

^aThis table shows the prediction accuracy of the DRAF models on the holdout dataset (30% of the total), and the other models as reported in the original references (33–35) that used different TF-TFBS test datasets. Our holdout dataset is 34-, 116- and 119-fold larger than the datasets from (35), (34) and (33), respectively. The test dataset for DRAF has 364 317 (positive and negative) TF-TFBS links which is more than 10 times larger than the next largest dataset used in (35).